HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
Mr. Justice Vinit Kumar Mathur, J
SMT. SANGEETA SUWALKA – Appellant
Versus
MAHARSHI DAYANAND SARASWATI UNIVERSITY – Respondent
CW / 3354 / 2025
Order :
1. Heard learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in the II year of the LLB examination from the respondent-MDSU University, Ajmer. However, she was declared failed in three subjects, namely Jurisprudence, Law of Crimes & Penal Code and Constitutional Law of India and, therefore, she applied for re-evaluation of her answer sheets/copies. Learned Senior Counsel further submits that on re-evaluation of the answer sheets/copies, the petitioner was declared passed in two subjects namely Law of Crimes & Penal Code and Constitutional Law of India and, therefore, as a result, she appeared in the supplementary examination for the subject of Jurisprudence. He submits that in the supplementary examination for Jurisprudence, the petitioner was again declared failed and, therefore, under the directions of this Court, the petitioner again applied for re- evaluation of the answer-sheets/copies from the supplementary examination of Jurisprudence, wherein, in the re-evaluation of the answer-sheet/copy of supplementary examination for Jurisprudence, she was once again declared failed as she could not secure the required passing marks.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that, in the meanwhile, after the II Year examination, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the final year examination in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, and she successfully cleared the final year examination. He further submits that as per the photocopies of the answer sheets/copies provided by the University, there are no markings indicating that the answer sheets/copies have been checked, and no marks have been awarded to the petitioner. He, therefore, prays that the petitioner may again be allowed to appear in the upcoming examination of Jurisprudence for clearing the subject.
4. I have considered the submissions made at the Bar and have gone through the relevant records of the case.
5. The factual matrix narrated above clearly show that the petitioner failed to clear both the main exam as well as the supplementary exam of Jurisprudence in the II year, despite there being a re-evaluation of the answer sheets/copies in both the exams. It is a settled position that a person will be entitled to enter into the Final Year of LLB course only if he/she has cleared the II Year examination. However, during the proceedings of re- evaluation, the petitioner was permitted to appear in the Final year examination and she successfully cleared the same but, as the petitioner was permitted to appear in the final year examination in pursuance of the interim order granted by this Court, therefore, no right has been created in her favour.
6. The contention of the Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner that the answer sheets/copies have not been checked as there are no markings on the same is not valid and is noted to be rejected on the ground that on the front page of every answer sheet/copy, there is a check-list, which is required to be filled in by the examiner without making any markings inside the answer sheet/copy. This procedure is intended to ensure that in case, if any answer-sheet/copy is sent for re-evaluation, then the examiner conducting re-evaluation may not get influenced by the marks awarded by the earlier examiner.
7. Since, the petitioner failed to clear the paper of Jurisprudence in II year, therefore, there is no question to permit her to appear in the Final year examination and the provisions of the University also do not permit to do so. Therefore, she is required to undergo the II year examination again and no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the present writ petition.
8. In view of the discussion made above, there is no force in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.
9. Stay petition and other pending applications, if any, also stand dismissed accordingly.
A student who fails in required subjects is not entitled to progress to the final year of study, even under interim orders, unless eligibility criteria are met.
The absence of a provision for re-evaluation in the Rules cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. Re-evaluation of ex....
The court's decision was based on the principle of mandamus, allowing the petitioner to continue the MBBS course and take the III year examination.
The court allowed the petitioner to submit a representation regarding her exam eligibility, emphasizing rights to due consideration.
A candidate cannot gain admission to higher semester classes without clearing all requisite prior examinations, and obtaining interim relief through suppression of facts is impermissible.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.